Oakland score to identify low-risk patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding performs well among emergency department patients.

IF 2 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE International Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1186/s12245-025-00815-5
Daniel D DiLena, Sean C Bouvet, Madeline J Somers, Maqdooda A Merchant, Theodore R Levin, Adina S Rauchwerger, Dana R Sax
{"title":"Oakland score to identify low-risk patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding performs well among emergency department patients.","authors":"Daniel D DiLena, Sean C Bouvet, Madeline J Somers, Maqdooda A Merchant, Theodore R Levin, Adina S Rauchwerger, Dana R Sax","doi":"10.1186/s12245-025-00815-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Oakland Score predicts risk of 30-day adverse events among hospitalized patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) possibly identifying patients who may be safe for discharge. The Oakland Score has not been studied among emergency department (ED) patients with LGIB. The Oakland Score composite outcome includes re-bleeding, defined as additional blood transfusion requirements and/or a further decrease in hematocrit (Hct) >/= 20% after 24 h in clinical stability; red blood cell transfusion; therapeutic intervention to control bleeding, including surgery, mesenteric embolization, or endoscopic hemostasis; in-hospital death, all cause; and re-admission with further LGIB within 28 days. Prediction variables include age, sex, previous LGIB admission, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and hemoglobin concentration, and scores range from 0 to 35 points, with higher scores indicating greater risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years old) patients with a primary ED diagnosis of LGIB across 21 EDs from March 1st, 2018, through March 1st, 2020. We excluded patients who were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding (esophago-gastroduodenoscopy without LGIB evaluation), patients who left against medical advice or prior to ED provider evaluation, ED patients without active health plan membership, and patients with incomplete Oakland Score variables. We assessed predictive accuracy by reporting the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios at multiple clinically relevant thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 8,283 patients with LGIB, 52% were female, mean age was 68, 49% were non-White, and 27% had an adverse event. The AUROC for predicting an adverse event was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86). There were 1,358 patients with an Oakland Score of </=8; 4.9% had an adverse event, and sensitivity of the Oakland Score at this threshold was 97% (95% CI 96%-98%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Oakland Score had high predictive accuracy among ED patients with LGIB. Prospective evaluation is needed to understand if the risk score could augment ED decision-making and improve outcomes and resource utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":13967,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792187/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-025-00815-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Oakland Score predicts risk of 30-day adverse events among hospitalized patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) possibly identifying patients who may be safe for discharge. The Oakland Score has not been studied among emergency department (ED) patients with LGIB. The Oakland Score composite outcome includes re-bleeding, defined as additional blood transfusion requirements and/or a further decrease in hematocrit (Hct) >/= 20% after 24 h in clinical stability; red blood cell transfusion; therapeutic intervention to control bleeding, including surgery, mesenteric embolization, or endoscopic hemostasis; in-hospital death, all cause; and re-admission with further LGIB within 28 days. Prediction variables include age, sex, previous LGIB admission, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and hemoglobin concentration, and scores range from 0 to 35 points, with higher scores indicating greater risk.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult (≥ 18 years old) patients with a primary ED diagnosis of LGIB across 21 EDs from March 1st, 2018, through March 1st, 2020. We excluded patients who were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding (esophago-gastroduodenoscopy without LGIB evaluation), patients who left against medical advice or prior to ED provider evaluation, ED patients without active health plan membership, and patients with incomplete Oakland Score variables. We assessed predictive accuracy by reporting the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios at multiple clinically relevant thresholds.

Results: We identified 8,283 patients with LGIB, 52% were female, mean age was 68, 49% were non-White, and 27% had an adverse event. The AUROC for predicting an adverse event was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86). There were 1,358 patients with an Oakland Score of

Conclusion: The Oakland Score had high predictive accuracy among ED patients with LGIB. Prospective evaluation is needed to understand if the risk score could augment ED decision-making and improve outcomes and resource utilization.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
奥克兰评分识别低危患者下消化道出血在急诊科患者中表现良好。
背景:奥克兰评分预测下消化道出血(LGIB)住院患者30天不良事件的风险,可能确定哪些患者可以安全出院。奥克兰评分尚未在急诊科(ED) LGIB患者中进行研究。奥克兰评分综合结果包括再出血,定义为额外输血需求和/或24小时临床稳定后红细胞压积(Hct)进一步下降20%;红细胞输注;治疗干预以控制出血,包括手术、肠系膜栓塞或内镜止血;院内死亡,全因死亡;并在28天内再次接受LGIB检查。预测变量包括年龄、性别、LGIB入院史、收缩压、心率、血红蛋白浓度,评分范围为0 ~ 35分,得分越高风险越大。方法:回顾性队列研究2018年3月1日至2020年3月1日期间21例原发性ED诊断为LGIB的成人(≥18岁)患者。我们排除了更可能有上消化道出血的患者(没有LGIB评估的食管胃十二指肠镜检查),不遵医嘱或在ED医生评估之前离开的患者,没有积极健康计划会员的ED患者,以及奥克兰评分变量不完整的患者。我们通过报告受试者操作曲线下面积(AUROC)、敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及多个临床相关阈值的阳性和阴性似然比来评估预测准确性。结果:我们确定了8283例LGIB患者,52%为女性,平均年龄为68岁,49%为非white, 27%有不良事件。预测不良事件的AUROC为0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86)。结论:奥克兰评分在ED合并LGIB患者中具有较高的预测准确性。需要进行前瞻性评估,以了解风险评分是否可以增强ED决策,改善结果和资源利用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the journal is to bring to light the various clinical advancements and research developments attained over the world and thus help the specialty forge ahead. It is directed towards physicians and medical personnel undergoing training or working within the field of Emergency Medicine. Medical students who are interested in pursuing a career in Emergency Medicine will also benefit from the journal. This is particularly useful for trainees in countries where the specialty is still in its infancy. Disciplines covered will include interesting clinical cases, the latest evidence-based practice and research developments in Emergency medicine including emergency pediatrics.
期刊最新文献
Operationalizing preparedness: bridging the "Know-Do" gap in Rwanda's infectious disease policy. Achieving door-to-balloon time ≤ 90 minutes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective clinical audit from a tertiary care centre in India. Overuse of imaging for pulmonary embolism in emergency departments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Application of HEART, GRACE 2.0 and TIMI scores for risk stratification of chest pain: a single-centre external pilot study in a Sri Lankan population. Prehospital assessment of perinatal patients by ambulance clinicians: development, implementation, review and national application.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1